Category talk:Candidates for deletion
Please use this page to discuss pages that have been labeled for deletion. Candidate for deletion discussion: Mikro articles Some anonymous contributor has recently marked a number of articles relate to the Mikro series (GRGM21M, GRGM21L, GRGM08LTD1, GRGM08LTD2, GRGM08LTD3, GRGM09LTD1, GRGM09LTD2, GRGM21CT1, GRGM21MCT, GRGM21MSP) as candidates for deletion without giving any real cause. In all cases, these are articles on models with distinct model numbers which are listed distinctly in Ibanez's website, catalogs and parts catalogs. As such, it seems that we should be able to have a distinct article on this wiki for each model. In what I have seen, this appears to be the practice here. Deejayk (talk) 21:53, March 30, 2016 (UTC) :I am not anonymous, I just don't log in unless I have to. lol :So, as to why I nominated these for deletion - I thought it was fairly easy to understand in the Edit Summary for each. :What is the difference between the Ibanez GRGM21 and the GRGM21M? One has a maple fretboard. That doesn't justify a separate page. What is the difference between the RG3bk and the RG3wp (I don't even pretend to know all of the models you listed, so I just randomly selected a model name for example)? One is black and one is white. They do not need a separate page. :-- 23:42, March 30, 2016 (UTC) ::I can see where you're coming from to a point, and I certainly wouldn't argue that every different finish should warrant it's own article. But the differences between these models AREN'T limited to just the finish. Since Ibanez treats them as separate models in ALL of their literature, it certainly seems that separate articles are warranted on this wiki. If you know of a precedent where models with distinct model numbers (not just finish codes) are lumped together in the same wiki article, I'd love to see it. If that precedent exists then we can use that format as a model, but if it doesn't I see no reason why it should start here. ::There are plenty of models missing entirely from this wiki...why not work on documenting some of those rather than trying to tear down the work of others? Deejayk (talk) 23:53, March 30, 2016 (UTC) ::: But, using that argument... I spent a lot of time reviewing each of your edits, and it hurts my feelings that you even question the work that I put in. So now, you are the one that can stop trying to tear down what I've done. I said it last, that makes me the winner? ::: On a serious note, A GR21 is a GR21 whether it is blue with maple or black with rosewood. That is why it is called a GR21. The things that come after that are the specifics. Such as GR21M for maple. Or L for lefthanded. They are all the same model. They don't need separate pages. -- 03:41, March 31, 2016 (UTC) ::::I didn't say it hurt my feelings, but deleting pages that contain relevant data certainly diminishes the value of the wiki. I have no idea what you mean by the "I said it last" comment, but your argument skills are starting to make me understand why you choose to hide behind an anonymous IP address. ::::As to the content of the topic being discussed, I asked for examples where instruments with distinct model numbers are presented on a single wiki article, which you apparently chose to ignore. Let's not confuse model numbers with finish codes — Ibanez gives the GRGM21M it's own model number (distinct from the GRGM21) and then appends a finish code to that. As I look around the wiki, I see numerous examples of distinct pages for guitars that are similar except for the fretboard and/or the handedness, e.g. GRG170/GRG170DX/GRG170DXL or GRG150/GRG150DX/GRG150DXB/GRG150P. I've yet to find a single article that presents information on more than one model. ::::I will concede that it is a little odd to me that special editions that vary only by finish (color) from the model on which they are based should need to have their own articles, see GRGM08LTD1/GRGM08LTD2/GRGM08LTD3 which are essentially GRGM21s with different finishes. However, in creating articles for these models I was once again simply following the lead of editors who had come before me. I would be fine with incorporating these special editions into the main article, but we should look to be consistent across the wiki. Deejayk (talk) 14:44, March 31, 2016 (UTC) ::::: Basically, what you are saying is "because someone else did something wrong, I am allowed to do something wrong too." That argument doesn't hold water. Nor does your previous argument of "stop tearing down other's work." Vandals work hard at their vandalism, that doesn't mean that we should leave it there. Like I said, I worked just as hard reviewing your edits as you did making them. So, everyone is on equal ground with that. :::::If Wikia was not notoriously slow and with so many pop-ups, I would consider taking some free time to fix old articles. But, as it stands, I only edit things as they come up - which means recent changes, and models that I specifically look up (usually because I am about to buy or sell one). That is about all I can stand on this site. ::::: As to me being anonymous - I am not anonymous. I am known as 98.235.52.153, and I have been for the past six weeks when Comcast gave me a new modem. Prior to that, I was known by another set of numbers. Of course, I have a Wikia screen name because it is required on other portals, and my mobile devices vary in IP addresses. But at home, on my computer, I will be 98.235.52.153 until this modem dies and I get a new one. Wikia reads IPv4, which means my "name" is less likely to change then on a site like Wikipedia which reads IPv6. My IPv6 changes every time I connect, as well as after every 36 hours of constant connectivity. Anonymous, I am not. ::::: I am not going to respond anymore to this conversation. I nominated them. You disputed my nomination. I defended my position. There is nothing more to say. In a week, the bossman will come by and make a decision. He will either side with me (who has a history of keeping the place clean even though I am "anonymous"), or you, the new guy who "made an account". :::::-- 16:07, March 31, 2016 (UTC) ::::::I feel like we're getting distracted with personal attacks, and I apologize for my part in that. I think it's fair to assume that we both share a goal of making this wiki as useful as possible. Can we de-escalate the back-and-forth and simply focus on the content? As yet you've not responded to my request to show any precedents to your assertion. Simply disengaging from the conversation serves no useful purpose. ::::::I realize I'm new here and as such I'm simply trying to do things in the way that I've seen they've been done previously. It seems that my additions are consistent with the way the wiki has been organized to date. Whether that is the "best" way is a matter of discussion, but if you feel the GRGM21M article should be removed, can you explain why you don't also mark the GRG170DX article for deletion as well? That's just one example, I know that I could easily find 50 more. I haven't yet come across any counter-examples. I've even come across at least one case where individual articles have been created for each finish (see JEM7 (Burnt Stained Blue) and JEM7 (Root Beer)). If this wiki can support articles for individual finishes in this case, why can't it support separate articles for distinct models in the case of the Mikro series? ::::::The question of whether similar models SHOULD be consolidated into a single article is certainly something that could be discussed, and I think that I would generally come down in agreement with you. But whatever the outcome of that discussion it seems like we'd want to apply it consistently across the wiki. Deejayk (talk) 16:22, March 31, 2016 (UTC) :::::::I came across today this article (Ibanez Wiki:Article layout guideline/Guitar models#When does a guitar get its own page?) which addresses the very topic being debated here. It states in very clear teams that guitars with distinct model numbers (including suffixes) should have individual articles. As such, it seems this should close the book on the discussion of whether the GRGM21, GRGM21M and GRGM21L merit individual articles (hint: they do). Based on this and unless someone wants to debate this point further, I intend to remove the deletion templates from these articles within a week. Deejayk (talk) 15:08, April 5, 2016 (UTC) ::::::::Please do NOT delete these kind of pages. Like for exemple, the Left-handed ones: I spend quite some time to add/edit many models to make them easy reachable. You do not know how hard it is to find what models are available for us lefties. Also, a maple fretborad is definitely not a rosewood fretboard (so it's a different guitar -> different page), same goes for what could be seen as a trivial matter: colors. Lets say pink model was available in 2006, blue one in 2011, black one discontinued in 2009... Each guitar has its own history if we can say, and these informations can be quite valuable for Ibanez "historians". You may not be interested in such minor details but rest assured that some people really care. Thanks. --KainTGC (talk) 14:22, April 6, 2016 (UTC) :::::::::Thanks for the input, KainTGC. I agree with you that much could be done to make the wiki more useful and deleting articles containing useful information on distinct models doesn't serve that purpose. :::::::::Not to take this on a tangent, but to your point about being able to find information on particular instruments (e.g. lefty models), this is what I am trying to improve with my recent effort to add categories. My initial undertaking is to categorize all models on the basis of the pickup configuration (see Category:Guitar models by pickup configuration) so that if someone were interested only in models with, for example, HSH pickups they can easily get a list of all relevant models. I've noticed that there is some such categorization already in place (see Category:Guitar models by special category) including Category:Left-handed guitar models. Deejayk (talk) 15:12, April 6, 2016 (UTC) ::::::::::Thank you, we share the same point of view. BTW, the pickup configs you're adding via Categories is (to me) of great value, a few years ago I was looking for a not-so-common config: a HSS guitar (I endend up with a SA160FML), I wish this piece of information was there earlier ;) ::::::::::On a side-note, I'm trying to list ALL the existing models displayed in the official Ibanez catalogs (ressource is online via the ibz site). I don't know were to discuss this with peole who may be interested in keeping the wiki up to date, as the forum seems to be quite deserted. Any input? You can see a preview of my work (2014 models, so far) on my profile. --KainTGC (talk) 20:56, April 6, 2016 (UTC) Candidate for deletion discussion: Sharktooth inlays User recently added a deletion template to Sharktooth inlays claiming that they are more properly called "Himalayan" inlays. While that may certainly be the case (I don't claim to be any sort of Ibanez expert), a quick Google search for the term "ibanez 'himalayan inlays'" yields exactly four results while a search for "ibanez 'sharktooth inlays'" yields over 100,000 results. While this quick-and-dirty test is by no means definitive, it certainly points to the fact that the "sharktooth" terminology is much more widely used. To address this issue I have created a new Himalayan inlays page which redirects to Sharktooth inlays. Setting aside the pedantic question of which term is "correct", I feel that the page itself has value to this wiki. I agree that the content is minimal (and the page is therefore tagged as a stub), but these inlays (whatever you wish to call them) are certainly a signature Ibanez feature and as such a simple article explaining the meaning of the term certainly seems like it belongs here. Deejayk (talk) 23:34, April 1, 2016 (UTC) :No, ya dumb mo-fo, you don't get to decide that your own post doesn't get deleted. Otherwise I would post pictures of my dick, and then decide that it isn't fit for deletion. :They are Chinese toys made for 6 year old girls. Why are you putting so much effort towards them. Most companies don't even acknowledge their 3/4 sized gear. They're toys! :So, now, go make yourself useful and change your pages to HS and HSS. Are you dyslexic or something. HS. HSS. Preceding comment added by (talk) 13:19, April 6, 2016‎ (UTC)